"Official" Night of the Living Dead Sequel - With Romero's Original Team

[Neil]

I don't get a good feeling from this after Night Of The Living Dead 30th Anniversary Edition and Children Of The Living Dead... https://movieweb.com/night-of-the-li...05vewpyT2NsAfE

[JDP]

I have a problem with this idea. You can't make a real "sequel" to that movie because ALL of its main characters die. That sets this movie apart from the rest of Romero's zombie movies. In all his other zombie films there were survivors, so you could conceivably make a genuine sequel to any of them. Not Night, though. Everyone relevant to that particular story is dead by the end of the movie. The story begins and ends with these people. That = NO POSSIBLE REAL SEQUEL. So, as far as I am concerned, Dawn & the others in the series are as close to a "sequel" to Night as it can possibly get. They happen at different points of the same zombie crisis, but by necessity with different characters than the first one, who are all dead.

[nycbsn]

Agreed. Dawn and Day (and Land.... I guess) are as close as sequels can get to a film where the entire cast gets killed off. If this supposed "official" sequel ignores the rest of the trilogy, it will not only be a total F-YOU to the rest of the series but it will also create even more confusion for those who don't follow them. You have Romero's series which is widely accepted as cannon, then ROTLD, children of the dead, etc. All of which follow up after Night in alt timelines. If they HAVE to do this, i hope they acknowledge the trilogy (i.e. take place b/w Night and Dawn?) but i know they won't. It will go off on another timeline where Dawn and Day never occured, which is as stupid as it gets. I already said this in another thread but I'll say it again... Best idea would be to take a hint from the new Halloween and only ignore the shiity sequels, starting afresh from a more desirable point in the series. But i know that wont happen either. Just wishful thinking.

[JDP]

Agreed. Dawn and Day (and Land.... I guess) are as close as sequels can get to a film where the entire cast gets killed off. If this supposed "official" sequel ignores the rest of the trilogy, it will not only be a total F-YOU to the rest of the series but it will also create even more confusion for those who don't follow them. You have Romero's series which is widely accepted as cannon, then ROTLD, children of the dead, etc. All of which follow up after Night in alt timelines. If they HAVE to do this, i hope they acknowledge the trilogy (i.e. take place b/w Night and Dawn?) but i know they won't. It will go off on another timeline where Dawn and Day never occured, which is as stupid as it gets. I already said this in another thread but I'll say it again... Best idea would be to take a hint from the new Halloween and only ignore the shiity sequels, starting afresh from a more desirable point in the series. But i know that wont happen either. Just wishful thinking. The way I see it, they only have one option if they want to be taken seriously by any fans: the events of this planned movie have to take place somewhere between Night and Dawn (which takes place about 3 weeks after Night) and obviously by force with a whole set of new main characters and a different story, since all the ones from the first movie are dead. Anything else = B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T that no one is going to take seriously. So, that makes this comment in the article totally meaningless: Night of the Living Dead did spawn a series of other Dead movies, starting with Dawn of the Dead. However, it sounds like this is going to be much more of a direct follow-up, as opposed to something that just happens to be taking place in the same universe. Because it will then simply be a new entry in the series "that just happens to be taking place in the same universe", not a real sequel to the particular story of Night, which is impossible to do since all its main characters die by the end of it. Had any of them survived, then yes, you could make a genuine sequel by following what happened to whoever survived.

[shootemindehead]

I don't get a good feeling from this after Night Of The Living Dead 30th Anniversary Edition and Children Of The Living Dead... https://movieweb.com/night-of-the-li...05vewpyT2NsAfE This is not a good idea. Continuing George's vision after 'Land of the Dead' might be an option. But, I'm uncomfortable about films that wipe out sequels and retcon entire franchises. But, either way, I don't think that this production team is really up to the task, tbh.

[MinionZombie]

Didn't Night of the Living Dead already have a sequel, though? What was the name of it now ... ... began with a D, I think...

[JDP]

Didn't Night of the Living Dead already have a sequel, though? What was the name of it now ... ... began with a D, I think... The article does acknowledge that movie and the ones that came after, but it dismisses them as entries in a series "that just happens to be taking place in the same universe". But what do they think this intended new movie will be? It cannot be anything else but just that: another entry in this same series "that just happens to be taking place in the same universe". Obviously it cannot be a "direct" sequel to Night since such a thing is impossible. For that to be able to happen, at least one of its main characters would have had to survive. Then you could make a sequel by following what happens to whoever survived and continue his/her/their story through the ongoing zombie situation. Since this cannot happen, then they will have to come up with a set of new main characters and new stories. But that's what Dawn et al. was. So we are back at square one: nothing makes this movie more special or very different than the "sequels" that Romero himself made with new characters and stories during the same zombie crisis.

[nycbsn]

The way I see it, they only have one option if they want to be taken seriously by any fans: the events of this planned movie have to take place somewhere between Night and Dawn (which takes place about 3 weeks after Night) and obviously by force with a whole set of new main characters and a different story, since all the ones from the first movie are dead. Anything else = B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T that no one is going to take seriously. So, that makes this comment in the article totally meaningless: Night of the Living Dead did spawn a series of other Dead movies, starting with Dawn of the Dead. However, it sounds like this is going to be much more of a direct follow-up, as opposed to something that just happens to be taking place in the same universe. Hahaha basically yeah. That comment you quoted from the article makes them contradict themselves. So, they think Dawn and Day were "inspired/spawned" by Night and not really sequels, just films that happen to take place in the same universe, but then they want a direct follow up to Night (which I thought Dawn was, being that its ***3 weeks*** later) however the only option they have is to make a film SIMILAR to Dawn and Day -- similar in that it would be in *the same universe* with *new story* and *new characters* -- just the thing they THINK they are avoiding. LOL. Here's another disturbing quote that made me raise and eyebrow: But, unknown to most is that in the 1970's, the original writers and producers of Night of the Living Dead penned a sequel to their masterpiece. A sequel that inexplicably has gone unproduced for over forty years - until now. and George A. Romero's wife, Suzanne Desrocher-Romero, had previously revealed that her late husband left behind 40 or more scripts that hadn't been produced. It's unclear at the present time if this is one of the scripts she was referring to. Assuming the "original team" includes GAR, why would he write two different follow ups to Night of the Living Dead (Dawn of the Dead and, in this case, Night of the Living Dead Part II)?? This makes no sense at all. It sounds more like someone from this "team" took one of his unused scripts, saw dollar signs, and decided to tweak one of them into a "direct follow up". Romero would never write something like this.

[EvilNed]

Maybe it's the elusive Land of the Dead that's somehow set before Day that's finally getting produced.

[nycbsn]

This is not a good idea. Continuing George's vision after 'Land of the Dead' might be an option. But, I'm uncomfortable about films that wipe out sequels and retcon entire franchises. But, either way, I don't think that this production team is really up to the task, tbh. I don't think films that retcon past entries are necessarily a bad thing. The upcoming terminator, for instance, acknowledges T1 and T2, retconing everything after. The series took a serious nosedive with T3, Salvation and Genesys. By retconing those bad sequels, you're giving the aeries another chance to make things right. Same goes for the cancelled Alien 5 which was supposed to retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection and only pick up after Aliens. The new Halloween had the right idea as well, erasing all the sequels and starting anew (although I don't think Halloween II is necessarily a bad film). But the way this article is written, it doesn't even mention it will take place b/w Night and Dawn but essentially indicates Dawn, etc. as unofficial sequels, kinda like saying "this one that we're making now is the one that matters, this one is legit, its cannon". They didn't say that directly, but just the way its worded, it doesn't sit easy with me. It makes it sound as if they are gonna retcon the rest of the trilogy, which is totally stupid. I mean first and foremost, how can you retcon Dawn? That's the equivalent of retconning Aliens or T2. As Dr Rausch would probably call these people, "Dummies! Dummies!"

[JDP]

Hahaha basically yeah. That comment you quoted from the article makes them contradict themselves. So, they think Dawn and Day were "inspired/spawned" by Night and not really sequels, just films that happen to take place in the same universe, but then they want a direct follow up to Night (which I thought Dawn was, being that its ***3 weeks*** later) however the only option they have is to make a film SIMILAR to Dawn and Day -- similar in that it would be in *the same universe* with *new story* and *new characters* -- just the thing they THINK they are avoiding. LOL. Here's another disturbing quote that made me raise and eyebrow: But, unknown to most is that in the 1970's, the original writers and producers of Night of the Living Dead penned a sequel to their masterpiece. A sequel that inexplicably has gone unproduced for over forty years - until now. and George A. Romero's wife, Suzanne Desrocher-Romero, had previously revealed that her late husband left behind 40 or more scripts that hadn't been produced. It's unclear at the present time if this is one of the scripts she was referring to. Assuming the "original team" includes GAR, why would he write two different follow ups to Night of the Living Dead (Dawn of the Dead and, in this case, Night of the Living Dead Part II)?? This makes no sense at all. It sounds more like someone from this "team" took one of his unused scripts, saw dollar signs, and decided to tweak one of them into a "direct follow up". Romero would never write something like this. I was wondering about that too. The original script was written by Romero and Russo. Maybe they wrote a script for this "Night of the Living Dead Part II", but then decided to can it, and then Romero went for the Dawn script instead to serve as the sequel. Unfortunately, the information about this script is scanty now. Hopefully such things will be eventually clarified.

[Philly_SWAT]

Maybe it's the elusive Land of the Dead that's somehow set before Day that's finally getting produced. You must have missed it, they DID make that movie! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418819/

[shootemindehead]

Maybe it's the elusive Land of the Dead that's somehow set before Day that's finally getting produced. - - - Updated - - - I don't think films that retcon past entries are necessarily a bad thing. The upcoming terminator, for instance, acknowledges T1 and T2, retconing everything after. The series took a serious nosedive with T3, Salvation and Genesys. By retconing those bad sequels, you're giving the aeries another chance to make things right. The Terminator franchise is beyond stupid. I only watch the first one anyway, so I don't really care what they do with it. There's too many nails in that coffin already to care. It'll never be "right". Same goes for the cancelled Alien 5 which was supposed to retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection and only pick up after Aliens. Thank god that got nuked. It would have been a bad joke. Maybe not as bad as the joke that 'Alien Resurrection' was, but bad nonetheless. Ripley, Newt and Hicks dead and some people need to get over it. Besides, the more Alien films that are made the worse the whole series gets. As far as I'm concerned, it's still a trilogy that ends with Ripley sacrificing herself so Weyland-Yutani can't get their pet. The new Halloween had the right idea as well, erasing all the sequels and starting anew (although I don't think Halloween II is necessarily a bad film). Not hearing great reports about the new Halloween. But yeh, 'Halloween II' is a decent film, and as far as I'm concerned with this, it's where the series ends for me and old Mickey is brown bread. I can't see myself bothering too hard with a new timeline to be honest. In any case John Carpenter is just whoring out these popular named IP's for a retirement fund, so my interest is kinda low anyway.